[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-598662-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-598662-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","undergraduate-essay-writing-online-and-face-to-face-peer-reviews-preliminary-comparison-of-opr-and-fpr","Undergraduate Essay Writing: Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews - Preliminary Comparison of OPR and FPR","","Implementation of two peer-review models supported second-year life sciences and biology essay assignments: a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach and a tutorial-based face-to-face peer review (FPR) approach. Essays centered on reviewing current literature to discuss molecular involvement in cancer development or stem-cell growth. After implementation, a preliminary analysis evaluated pros and cons using student and instructor feedback. Results indicated peer review was valued in both modes; OPR offered convenience and time/resource savings but presented technical drawbacks that limited usability for some learners. Further study with alternative OPR programs is planned.",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/undergraduate-essay-writing-online-and-face-to-face-peer-reviews-preliminary-comparison-of-opr-and-fpr/598662/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/undergraduate-essay-writing-online-and-face-to-face-peer-reviews-preliminary-comparison-of-opr-and-fpr/598662.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"awa","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What two peer-review approaches were compared in the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study compared a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach with a more traditional face-to-face peer review (FPR) conducted in tutorial settings.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did students write and how was peer review integrated into the assignment?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Students wrote literature reviews focused on molecular involvement in cancer development or stem-cell growth, with peer review embedded as checkpoints for an initial abstract and a rough draft.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did student and instructor feedback indicate about the two methods?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Feedback suggested peer review was generally perceived as valuable regardless of whether students used OPR or FPR.",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"What limitations affected the online peer review approach and what is planned next?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"Although OPR was convenient and saved time and resources, technical drawbacks made it challenging for some students. A subsequent investigation using alternative OPR programs with additional functionality is planned.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},598662,1792208717,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,104,109,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":135},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":105,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","12  \nUndergraduate Essay Writing: Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews  \nMike R. Chong, Lori Goff, & Kimberly Dej  \nMcMaster University  \nWe implemented two different approaches of using peer review to support undergraduate essay assignments for students taking large second-year courses in life sciences and biology: a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach and a more traditionalface-to-face peer review (FPR) approach that was conducted in tutorial settings. The essays consisted of a review of current literature to discuss the molecular involvement of cancer development or stem-cell growth. Following implementation of the peer reviews, we conducted a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of using the two methods. Student and instructor feedback suggested that the activity of peer review was generally perceived as valuable regardless of which approach was used. OPR was convenient and saved time and resources relative to FPR, but the technical drawbacks using the OPR approach made it challenging for some students to use. A subsequent investigation using alternative OPR programs that offer additional functionality is planned.  \nIntroduction  \nP eer assessment or peer review can be a powerful  \npedagogical tool that develops students’ critical and creative thinking skills. Since it involves the joint construction of knowledge through discourse, it could be argued that peer assessment has its philosophical foundations in active learning (Piaget, 1971) and social construction (Vygotsky, 1962) . Many students have reported that their learning has improved after reviewing and assessing each others’work. Topping (1998) conducted a review of the  \nliterature and identified that peer assessment yields cognitive benefits in multiple ways: constructive reflection, increased time on task, attention to crucial elements of quality work, and greater sense of responsibility. Interestingly, these benefits were found for both the students who conducted the reviews and the students who received peer-reviewed comments. Other reviews have provided support for the close resemblance of peer assessments to instructor assessments when judgement criteria are well-articulated and understood by the assessors (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000) .  \nWith the size of university classes growing, peer review in a face-to-face setting becomes a larger challenge to facilitate, fund, and coordinate. As such, online peer review (OPR) is emerging as a popular alternative to the classic format, face-to-face peer review (FPR) . OPR has been well-established as an effective language learning tool in English as a second language (ESL) classes (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Moloudi, 2011) and poses some advantages over the conventional FPR format. For example, OPR allows the implementation of peer review sessions without physical and time constraints (Rollinson, 2005), and longer peer review sessions may lead to higher quality peer reviews. Less explored is the application of OPR to university-level essay writing for science courses despite OPR becoming more prevalent in university writing classes (Liu & Sadler, 2003) .  \nThe purpose of this essay is to share how OPR and FPR methods were used in large secondyear science classes and the preliminary results about the pros and cons of using either approach. The two approaches included the Calibrated Peer Review TM (CPR, 2001) a program freely available from the University of California at Los Angelos (UCLA), anda traditional FPR approach conducted in tutorial settings, facilitated by teaching assistants (TAs) and coordinated by an instructional assistant. Unlike most previous studies which have focused on using OPR and FPR to develop rudimentary language skills in ESL classes, we hope to elucidate whether the application of these two modes of peer review can be extended to the university level to enhance essay writing, specifically in the sciences. This report is intended to be a preliminary comparison of OPRand FPR that ","cbCaib1lq5Z0Rviu","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaib1lq5Z0Rviu","pdf",743996,"English","# Introduction\n## Purpose and scope\n# Implementation of Face-to-Face and Calibrated Peer Review\n## FPR checkpoint workflow\n## FPR checkpoint timing and evaluation\n## OPR via Calibrated Peer Review","[{\"question\":\"What two peer-review approaches were compared in the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study compared a web-based online peer review (OPR) approach with a more traditional face-to-face peer review (FPR) conducted in tutorial settings.\"},{\"question\":\"What did students write and how was peer review integrated into the assignment?\",\"answer\":\"Students wrote literature reviews focused on molecular involvement in cancer development or stem-cell growth, with peer review embedded as checkpoints for an initial abstract and a rough draft.\"},{\"question\":\"What did student and instructor feedback indicate about the two methods?\",\"answer\":\"Feedback suggested peer review was generally perceived as valuable regardless of whether students used OPR or FPR.\"},{\"question\":\"What limitations affected the online peer review approach and what is planned next?\",\"answer\":\"Although OPR was convenient and saved time and resources, technical drawbacks made it challenging for some students. A subsequent investigation using alternative OPR programs with additional functionality is planned.\"}]","Undergraduate Essay Writing: Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews - Preliminary Comparison of OPR and FPR | PDF",1792087344,15]